Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Irony is duly noted (Score 1) 81

by davydagger (#47922415) Attached to: Solar Powered Technology Enhances Oil Recovery
I'm blaming the oil companies for crying like little retarded brats who've been whipped when solar companies gets subsidizes, screamin about how solar isn't economicly effective unless there are massive government subsidies.

Then low and behold, they get massive government subsidies in the form of tax breaks, and are bitchin and complainin about not being profitable enough. Pick one. Either if fine, but they can't have it both ways. On top of that, it looks to me like using solar is more cost effective, otherwise they wouldn't be using it themselves. Imagine if microsoft ran its internal servers on GNU/Linux?

But yeah, I believe you, it takes a lot of resources to produce oil, and its only going to take more and more. I mean whats going to happen when it becomes uncompetative? Should we still subsidize it?

Comment: Re:Irony is duly noted (Score 1) 81

by davydagger (#47922387) Attached to: Solar Powered Technology Enhances Oil Recovery
really? I think your confusing the argument. What you meant was "If all the oil in the world suddenly disappeared tommorow, the world would stop".

But thats totally diffrent, because everything around me could be made without well reserve oil.(I make the distinction because there are many things called "oil", and many sources for it.)

Comment: Re:Absolutely false (Score 1) 177

>Also note that your history indicated that "sawback" bayonets were mainly used by the German armies. Adopting a prohibition against them may have been a political move to allow retroactive condemnation of the "uncivilized" enemy army.

long before the geneva convention, and they dropped it on their own, without a convention, because they made shitty multitools.

remember, chemical warfare was against the earlier hauge convention, which existed long before WW1, which banned all the chemicals used in such.

Comment: Re:no, dickhead (Score 1) 177

>Right, because the military is the worst possible place to learn about the military.

no. I am just saying, repeating what they teach you in BCT as absolute fact is bullshit. Lot of it is outdated(generally fighting a few wars past), and very biased.

>Just like your stupid ass bayonet claim, it's fucking wrong.

I serious suggest reading something before getting mad.

>ad hominem

you keep using that word, you don't seem to know what it means. It doesn't mean "someone proved me wrong on internets", like I was doing to you, it means "attacking someone's character as a counter argument", such as you are doing.

>The US Military does not have any serrations on their weapons because of Geneva conventions. It can not be used as a multipurpose tool, and has not been issued as a multipurpose tool for that exact reason. If you need to saw rope, you have to use an entrenching tool.

the M9 bayonet has a serrated backside and is a multipurpose tool. The M9 was not designed with the serious intent of being used as a weapon.(its basicly a camping knife)

Oh speaking of e-tools, those are also serrated, and your instructed to use those as a weapon as well, as they have been used as weapons, because, oh, the last bayonet charge by US forces was in WW2, and it was outdated by then. ZOMG THE US ARMY LIKES TO FIND WAYS AROUND THE CONVENTION. Sweet shit. next your going to tell me that US forces would never aim a .50 cal machine gun at

I think what you mean to say, is no bayonet used by the US Army, when bayonnets were actually used against people, which would be true, because it wouldn't be praticle.

>Those same books are not always available to the public, so your Wiki page != US Military Libraries.

military libraries? no such thing. I've sifted through boxes of documents in my time, but there is no military library. And no, most soliders don't spend their off time sifting through such manuals on the rules of war.

Comment: We call this propaganda. (Score 0, Troll) 175

by davydagger (#47913995) Attached to: Sci-Fi Authors and Scientists Predict an Optimistic Future
your basicly funding a program to make people stop talking about today's problems by berating them, and encouraging people to look at the situation in a more positive white washing light. Your expected to apologize for, instead of demand change from the system.

That is scary, and orwellian. You might as well call your group the ministry of truth

Comment: Why the government? (Score 1) 60

by davydagger (#47913953) Attached to: Funding Tech For Government, Instead of Tech For Industry
Why the government? I think what he really meant to say is we could use that $23 million to fund public works projects. I could imagine what $23 million could do for some struggling Free software projects that might really help people, such as some of the bio-punks bio-hacker scene, help them turn into non-profit proffesional units doing good in medicine, and bio-engineering, taking tech from the hands of corporate and putting it back in the hands of the people, saving lives by making lifesaving devices and medicine affordable.

Comment: Re:So-to-speak legal (Score 1) 405

by davydagger (#47913875) Attached to: Comcast Allegedly Asking Customers to Stop Using Tor
well, for one you don't act like a utility. If you did, I'd hope someone would fucking regulate you.

As far as the government pushing around the internet, that ship has come and past. They didn't need regulation to install the "light refraction" monitoring system. They send court orders and takedown notices as they please. They show up with men in suits, with badges and guns as they please. They hand out gag orders as they please.

When it comes to limiting the ability to communicate, and over what subjects the government has already limited both you, and the utilities.

Common carrier protects the people from being regulated by the utility. But I guess we don't have freedoms if its a private company doing the impinging.

Comment: Re:So-to-speak legal (Score 1) 405

by davydagger (#47913835) Attached to: Comcast Allegedly Asking Customers to Stop Using Tor
I love the constitutional argument. The concept of this documenting protecing people's rights is absurd. It doesn't work that way. The first amendment has been trash since the alien and sedition act of 1796.

If you need more examples of how futile document worship is, you should look up the old constitution of the USSR. You'll get a real laugh. In it are things like guaruntees of freedom of speech, right ot assemble, and lots of freedomy feel good stuff. I mean they had a constitution protecting their rights. What could possibly go wrong.

Comment: Re:So-to-speak legal (Score 1) 405

by davydagger (#47913785) Attached to: Comcast Allegedly Asking Customers to Stop Using Tor
Lets be frank here. The government isn't "taking over" the ISP business, and it wouldn't be any diffrent than now. ISPs comply with all requests by the government, co-operated with the government for all intents and purposes. The government mandating ISPs be common carrier is a lot diffrent than the government restricting content on the internet, or performing mass surviallence of the same.

That said, they didn't need nationalization of the internet to do the latter. They just walked into datacenters with suits and badges(presumably guns, and the threat of detention) and said "we are doing XYZ".

Making the ISP common carriers does not grant government control over content of the internet, or technical operations of such. All it does is prevent edge networks from doing exactly what your affraid the government will do. Don't give it 10 years, we are being censored today. the NSA has been wiretapping the entire country since at least 2005, and in reality, using carnivore, raptor, and before that echelon, much longer.

Which leads me to the question for you: Why do you get so upset when the government restricts you, but keep silent when comcast does it? Either way its the same net effect for you. Why do you only get mad when our current government does it?

Premature optimization is the root of all evil. -- D.E. Knuth